Estate of Stephen B. Bland v. Islamic Republic of Iran
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146978
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- This action is a FSIA state-sponsored terrorism suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) arising from the Beirut Marine barracks bombing (Oct. 23, 1983).
- Plaintiffs include estates of decedents, survivors, and family members seeking damages; liability for Iran and MOIS had been established previously.
- The court granted retroactive treatment under the NDAA 2008 and proceeded to damages phase before a special master.
- Damages available include economic loss, pain and suffering, solatium, and punitive damages (per 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c)).
- The court adopts the special master’s damage framework but modifies awards when deviations occurred; final damages are set in a separate Order and Judgment.
- Total award: $1,233,458,232 (compensatory $277,805,908 and punitive $955,652,324).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are FSIA § 1605A damages recoverable retroactively and properly available here? | Bland plaintiffs—retrospective application allowed under NDAA § 1083(c)(2). | Iran/MOIS contest retroactive application and applicability of § 1605A to the case. | Yes; damages are available under § 1605A as retroactively applied via NDAA. |
| What framework governs pain and suffering damages for survivors and families? | Baseline $5 million with potential upward departures for severe injuries. | Maintain standard framework without excessive deviations. | Court adopts the established framework with upward/downward departures where warranted. |
| Should the special master’s awards be altered when deviating from the framework? | Deviations should be preserved if supported by evidence. | Deviations must align with the framework’s structure. | Court adopts most master awards but adjusts deviations to conform with the framework. |
| How should solatium (emotional distress) be calculated among family members? | Follow Heiser framework (spouses ~8M, parents ~5M, siblings ~2.5M). | Use prior FSIA awards and established heuristics. | Adopts Heiser framework with specific downward/upward adjustments where necessary; caps and adjustments apply. |
| How are punitive damages determined in Beirut bombing cases? | Apply ratio from earlier Beirut cases (Valore) to determine punitive amount. | Punitive damages set by applying a $3.44 ratio to compensatory damages, yielding $955,652,324. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (established FSIA damages framework and punitive damages ratio in Beirut bombing cases)
- Peterson II v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2007) (damages framework; adopted special master recommendations in prior proceedings)
- Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006) (solatium framework by familial relationship with decedent)
- Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2010) (punitive damages ratio guidance in FSIA cases)
- Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 768 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2011) (solatium awards—close relationships may warrant deviations)
- Stern v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 271 F. Supp. 2d 286 (D.D.C. 2003) (solatium framework precedent for family awards)
- Elahi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 124 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.D.C. 2000) (death/injury awarding framework; instantaneous death limits recovery)
- Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 264 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D.D.C. 2003) (related liability findings and damages considerations)